Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Get rid of him, asap.
I was certain it was gonna be sharia law but it's actually gay martial law
I mean, this is cool, but did anyone in their right minds think that President Obama had a bone (easy) in his body that opposed Gay Marriage? The fact that he's hidden it for four years is a symptom of the fundamental flaw in his administration, in seeking consensus he has placated irrational morons.
but on the back of Amendment 1 passing last night in NC, plus the general upward trend of support for equality and all that, it seems right to galvanise support now more than ever
can you imagine the thought process behind people willing to queue up in order to ban people of a different sexual persuasion from doing something that will have precisely no effect on them?
I'm seeing a lot of stuff on the internet about how OBAMA IS THE BEST GUY EVER when really it should be CONGRATULATIONS ON DISPLAYING BASIC HUMAN DECENCY
Most Americans support same-sex marriage, or at least don't give a shit one way or the other. It will now become an election issue, and will further split the GOP. Rightwing Christians will kick up a stink, which will just alienate them from the majority of the electorate & make the Republicans look batty & extreme by association.
is gay marriage a big enough deal for Obama to get the votes of the youth and females? I haven't seen much polling on the issue but is it really that much of a centrist issue. maybe he's just changing the narrative and trying to keep in line with the "forward" slogan that he has chosen
and it probably won't be anyway
would suit Obama, it's hardly in the state it was in the early 90s, which sunk Bush Snr against Clinton
right now you could put Carol Vorderman and Pythagoras in charge of the economy and they wouldn't be able to do a thing to make it better in four years.
Might as well just keep Obama in and avoid a war with Iran. No?
like when Obama came in and received the full force of criticism of the unpopularity of the government intervening and using gov/tax funds to bail out the banks, when this was obviously initiated by the Bush administration.
Are they really that thick? Isn't this a great advert for how weak democracy can be when you have an ignorant uninformed - ney, cretinous, people?
to stop doing it would be like saying......"hey you know all that dosh, that national resource that bush threw at saving the banking system......well Im gonna waste all of that by stopping the US approach of saving the banking system and let it all collapse anyway, so that the money that has gone to save some banks was just pouring it down the drain"
Now it may be that I think that the whole process was throwing it down the drain, but considering the number of people who think like me are miniscule, it is unlikely that someopne who would get to that position in politics would have such a view, I feel that Obamas hand was forced into continuing the Bush policy, hardly anyone would have supoported him to allow the system to collapse when the US had already spent so much to prevent it from collapsing. WHen he took over he was already on a really tilted slippery sloping deck.
Perhaps the UK would not be more savy, I do think that as an whole entity the UK electorate is moronic and this moronicness makes the advantages of democracy superficial and ultimately doomed
tried, but it is incredibly difficult, however I will try to regard Obama not in the context of the previous admin
It's hardly revolutionary when the Conservative Party has beaten him to it! (I know, I know, different issue in the US etc. But still.)
Yes, Section 28 was awful, but that was a long time ago now, parties change.
this is why the country's fucked and permanently in the hands of imbeciles no matter WHO wins
the Tories 'The Party of Section 28'? That's like calling Germany 'The Country of Adolf Hitler'. The world (and the political landscape) has changed a lot in 25 years.
but congratulations on coming up with the worst analogy I've seen all year
I'm here all week
They might come over like they're all centre-left in public, but you don't know what they're up to in the privacy of their own homes: wearing jack boots, goose-stepping around the kitchen. It's the hypocracy I can't stand...
Flippant. I just don't buy the comparison between Tory Party 1987 and Tory Party 2012. Cameron isn't Thatcher - he's not even Thatcher-lite. His contribution to the rise/decline of Britain won't be debated in 30 years time. Perhaps the political landscape hasn't changed so much as the social landscape: a policy like Clause/Section 28 would not see the light of day in 2012.
or something. But nice. Glad he came out and said it.
But does this seriously not make you think he might lose votes at the next election? I have the impression that America is pretty homophobic away from the coasts.
the poor and the disenfranchised, especially the poor black and hispanic communities, who might be less predisposed to support a candidate who's pro-SSM, no?
Like I think he will win, just, but it will be a much, much lower turn-out that does it. But I don't think Obama will be able to run in the same way as last time (Bin Laden notwithstanding) because we do now know what he stands for and who he is better than anyone did 4 years ago.
he has not really had a chance to show what he can, or cant, do, in an unfettered presidential manner.
The biggest criticism is that he has not been very effective, but how can he be when the republicans can stop his policies going through?
Why is it that the US public do still manage to get so heated up over what has been a rather mundane presidential performance?
but I suppose I am being forever idealistic that a substantial number of them cant be that ...........pathetic.
Democracy - nice idea, but, oh dear!
the whole of a human populations guesses actually make for stunning accuracy, but this is only when their minds are properly focused (e.g. the guessing of number of sweets in a jar...the larger the sample, the better the average guesstimate, stunningly so) obviously the political process results in maximum DEFOCUSING of minds, which is the problem with democracy
if only you had some kind of recording of you talking about these issues that I could download and listen to at my convenience.
I think the timing of this is mental personally. Come out in support of this after November. Its shite but its the system we have
as I asked up there though, do you think people will turnout for Obama (or Romney for that matter, as no one seems to like him) this time
I doubt he planned to do it pre-election, if at all.
and probably stupid move, politically speaking. Gays already know Obama is on their side. Most Americas would prefer to keep marriage between man and woman. This will lose him some votes.
On the other hand, there will be presidential debates. Obama will wipe the floor with Romney.
I predict Obama will win by 8 points, taking the majority of the swing states. I mean, let's not forget, the Republicans don't really like Romney. A stronger candidate and it might be a different story.
plus as said Romney is no Bill Clinton
less keen on his support of drone strikes that kill civilians across the middle east though
for 'having a democrat president support gay marriage'
was for the democrat president to support drone strikes across the middle east that would kill civilians as collateral damage?
oooooooh, this is difficult....Hmmm.... NNHHNN!! Someone get me an 8-ball!
the imagery of the choice that support gay marriage results in an automatic support of civilian-murdering drone strikes is hilarious.
BUT NOW WE'LL NEVER SEE THE FRUITS OF MY WIT
I obviously failed to make it funny, but created the possibility of humour for you, so I am glad cos it sort of worked
I'm glad we made these jokes funnier by explaining them.
Shame it took you four years as President to say it despite the debate being pretty public for your entire term. That's leadership.
Sounds a bit lefty to me.
Although everyone knows they're basically going ahead whatever the consulation says, they can't actually make that totally obvious by putting it in the Queen's Speech before the results are out. It'll be in the next one.